"New Match" at Ancestry Dna , but who ?

[Gadget]

Apologies - I've just realised I was talking about the Date selection rather than New.

Must be the weather 

All my latest News are 5-8, as Sinann's

[LizzieW]

Another thing I found is if you click on the name of a match, you get a page that defaults (if they've got a tree) to surnames in their tree, but there is a box marked Shared Matches.  If you click on that it will show you the shared matches with the person you have a match with.  That way I've managed to find a name that links me and a "3rd cousin".  However, despite contacting this person she hasn't shown any interest, despite some time back being in touch with my son (of course she's also matched with him) and giving him surnames in her tree.  The name we match with isn't in her tree - she's not gone far enough back - only to mid 1800s - so I guess she's not interested.

Which comes to another beef of mine, why do people get their DNA tested, if they don't want to then be in contact with matches?

[sugarfizzle]

My way of finding new matches, when clicking on 'New' doesn't work for whatever reason -

On all my 4th to 6th cousin matches and closer, and some of my 5 to 8 cousins, I make a comment in the notes section - No connection found, Shared matches abc, No tree, Steer Laversuch, etc.

Going through my 4 to 6 cousins I can easily see which matches I haven't seen before by the absence of a note.

Now that I have over 4 pages of them, it's getting a bit more tedious, but I do it periodically, as ancestry don't always seem to recognise/acknowledge new 4 to 6 matches!


Regards Margaret

[Finley 1]

todays NEW matches

as per this list and it is only half of them  /  most are the same

why bother  - Have shrunk it to very small but it just shows that out of a full page of new matches ... NONE are worth contacting


xin

[Gadget]

Just had my 300th 4th cousin or closer match from Ancestry 

Unfortunately, no tree and no shared matches - 29cM over 3 so ........

 

[Gardenshed]

It might be worth hanging in there and going back and checking the new matches a bit later, or alternatively contacting them now while they might still be excited about their results.

If someone has just been tested then they may not have got around to putting a tree up yet. I appreciate that the vast bulk of Ancestry matches seem just to have done it for a bit of fun, and even if they are mildly interested they may have no idea they have to do some research to work out their tree. However many of us work full time and have other commitments, and can only snatch short periods for family research, so it takes us a while to get there.

It took me a few months to put a rudimentary tree up on Ancestry to link with my DNA results. I have been in contact with one match who only has two names on an Ancestry tree but a very extensive tree on MYHeritage. He is retired but can’t be bothered with the effort of duplicating the tree and feels keen family historians are more likely to find him on MyHeritage. 

I am plodding very slowly but steadily through my better matches, contacting them to see if I can find a connection. It is, as others have pointed out, hard work. Perhaps because my own tree does not reflect the full extent of my research (on most of my lines) I try contacting better matches even if they have no tree or only a small one. I don’t contact those with private trees, taking that as a clear “keep away” signal. My response rate on Ancestry is not high, and while it is significantly better on FTDNA it is still low.

P.s. I think shared matches sometimes show up a little later after the new match pops up on Ancestry. Can’t be definite as it is months since I had a new match (4th or closer) on Ancestry.

[Gardenshed]

Just another thought - if it shows an unlinked tree, you can usually still view this tree (unless it is private) to see it is helpful.

Also, going back to an earlier query, on Ancestry, my DNA “front page” tells me how many 4th or closer cousins I have. If I select this text it takes me to a list of that group of matches with the new ones at the top of the list with a blue dot next to them. Apologies if I have misunderstood the question.

[Gadget]

She doesn't have an unlinked tree. I've checked all the usual things. I'll keep it on the backburner for the time being.

I just thought that a 300th was a nice round number 

[Gardenshed]

It is a lovely round number Gadget and much better than my measly 141  I am a just a little jealous 

Sorry, my reply and my reference to the unlinked trees were prompted by Xinia’s email - I was trying to be encouraging about the new matches with either no tree or an unlinked tree.